When "No" Means "Yes"

Let’s keep running the Feminist Definition on this one…

According to the original posting at Cranach, a feminist displayed her sexual fantasies in a photography exhibit at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee “with captions that describes the artist's reaction to the ‘unexpected intercourse’ that leads to her feeling ‘guilty and rejoiced.’”  

Cyberstones responded,

Several years ago I heard a book report on NPR by a feminist on rape. She claimed it was natural. Men (male and female) are simply animals and this is what animals do. Male animals want to impregnate as many females as possible and spread their seed. Female animals are incapable of not sleeping with other males, since their instincts tell them to spread the gene pool about. Male animals don't feel bad using their superior strength to subdue another animal (male or female) any more than a cat feels sorry for a mouse. That is what animals do so rape is natural also for me. It can't be stopped and it shouldn't even be considered immoral, since morals are just religious people trying to enslave us.

According to these feminists, if females are participants by nature in sexual attacks and in fact derive pleasure from them, what now constitutes rape?

Is this the final deconstruction of “No?”

Wendy Shallit noted that because of the loss of modesty through feminism, the only woman who can walk the streets safely is the one who can afford to hire bodyguards. Now it is also the one who can afford this new definition of rape.

I’ll pass.